How can they produce such colorful photos?

[a1157814a]

This is from the 'Photo of the Month' forum.
Do you think that picture has been edited? If not, how could he/she have shot such a colorful picture?

(Credit to DeadEye008)

 

[SHWELL]

I am no expert, but it looks like it could be edited. And a touch of HDR efx..

 

[Jon0807]

Proper exposure and a bump in saturation and some adjustments to levels, contrast, etc I'd say

 

[Muay_Thai_Dan]

lol i think probably a mix of- because it actually looked like that/ a bit of editing.

ud be surprised how beautiful things in nature really are. u just gotta be there to catch it

edit: oh and like jon said proper settings while he took the picture

 

[kundalini]

I'm no expert, but I'm confident in saying that if you post a photo that is not yours....... it should be linked. The only photos we see are from the OP and subsequent posters. This example violates the rules. giving credit is a good thing..... but regardless...................

 

[Muay_Thai_Dan]

kundalini is right

 

[Ptyler22]

Ya, that picture is clearly edited. Just look at the people, there is halo around them, so either they were pasted into the shot or there was some major brightness changes. and some contrast and saturation changes, they are things that don't take long but can completely change the look of a picture.
No disrespect to who ever shot this, I'm just analyzing the picture.

 

[ShutterSpeed]

a beautiful shot - and edited!

without a doubt.

what i wonder is about photographers who made great photos when they were only SLR's and blackrooms....now THAT was good photography!

 

[ksmattfish]

what i wonder is about photographers who made great photos when they were only SLR's and blackrooms....now THAT was good photography!

Alright, I'm going to let you in on the secret... they went tot he store and bought a roll of Velvia, or other ultra saturated film. Actually they understood and took control of their processing (which is a much better term than "edit" to describe what we are talking about here). Maybe they didn't even do the processing and printing themselves, but they understood what their lab was going to do, and they exposed accordingly.

There is no such thing as an unprocessed, finished photograph whether digital or film, Polaroid, dry plate, collodion, daguerreotype, whatever.... If it's unprocessed you can't see it. Some of you may think files that come straight out of your camera are unprocessed, but they were shot in raw format (yep, even though your camera is set to jpeg or doesn't even have a raw setting), and then processed with in-camera software.

Contrast and color control are basic concerns in the traditional darkroom. Beyond that you can burn, dodge, mask, layer, sharpen, etc.... Everything that I do in Lightroom 2 as far as processing goes can be done in the traditional darkroom. Some things would take a lot longer, but the fundamental concepts are the same.

I wasn't at the sunset pictured here, but I've seen plenty that were even more colorful and vibrant. I don't think this photo even approaches the limit on the wonderful color potentially possible "straight out of the camera" with film or digital. The key to great color is to combine good light with good exposure and processing skills. It's not a trick anymore than baking a tasty pie is a trick. You just need to know what you are doing from start to finish. The "to finish" part is important. Many photogs think a photo is created in the split second the shutter is open. Whether using film or digital there is still a long way to go to get a finished photo. It's a chain of steps between idea and finished photograph, and any weak link will undermine the potential quality.

You are wasting your time looking for perfect gear or tricks. Just concentrate on learning the fundamentals of photography, and wonderful color and contrast can be yours.

 

[abraxas]

The only fair thing is to ask the artist.